Deaf Abuse Network and Education Advocacy
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 844759589
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2022–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2021
- Location
- Glendale, AZ, USA
- Phone
- 4804478740
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Printing, Publishing
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $162,034
- Expenses
- $139,459
- Assets
- $40,629
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ANDRE SIMONS (PRESIDENT)
- MARY MCALEVY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
People named in this filing
- ANDRE SIMONS (PRESIDENT)
- AMY BADAMI (SECRETARY)
- JACOB MAGALLAN (TREASURER)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Deaf abuse network and education (dane) is committed to supporting victims and survivors in Arizona deaf communities to end intimate partner violence through education, advocacy, empowerment, and prevention.
What it reported doing in 2025
Systems advocacy and professional training dane advocacy worked with service providers and community partners to improve access and response for deaf and hard of hearing survivors. Approximately 60 professionals and service providers participated in training consultation or systems advocacy activities during the year.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 57
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 39
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 54%; rating input score 54
- Program expense ratio: 62.7%; rating input score 63
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 13.9%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.29; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 27.8%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 95.6% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 78.6% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 61.3% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 54% of revenue deployed · 62.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $88K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
- People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.